boyfriday Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 There is a metric ton or ten of first-hand testimonial evidence about, if you care to look From the UK? I'm not surprised: I offered a tentative reply some time back...but your own subsequent reply was rather evasive: Apologies, the rather playful emoticon threw me, so I responded in kind. I've noticed you haven't challenged jc and his rather 'evasive' response to my question? No other point here that stirring the brown stuff a bit more, for brown stuffs and giggles That's absolutely fine, if you saw how firmly my tongue is usually stuck in my cheek during debates of this nature you'd see we play the same game ---------- Post added 05-11-2014 at 15:46 ---------- Do you think a business owner should have the right to stop people entering their premises with their identity concealed behind a mask, balaclava, burka? Yes I do..it's a commercial decision they're making, not a constitutional one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Yes I do..it's a commercial decision they're making, not a constitutional one. So the law needs changing then so that they can ban the burka if they see fit. ---------- Post added 05-11-2014 at 15:57 ---------- Some good news, despite hiding their identities behind a burkas the police still managed to identify them, arrest them, charge and take them to court. Burka-clad gangsters jailed for 58 years for £1.5million smash and grab jewellery raid on Selfridges http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728283/Burka-clad-gangsters-jailed-1-5million-smash-grab-jewellery-raid-Selfridges.html#ixzz3ID51l7y7 I know its in the dailymail so some of you will difficulty believing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) So the law needs changing then so that they can ban the burka if they see fit. I'm not certain a change in the law is required to facilitate that (or at least require that people visiting your premises are identifiable). Some good news, despite hiding their identities behind a burkas the police still managed to identify them, arrest them, charge and take them to court. Burka-clad gangsters jailed for 58 years for £1.5million smash and grab jewellery raid on Selfridges http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728283/Burka-clad-gangsters-jailed-1-5million-smash-grab-jewellery-raid-Selfridges.html#ixzz3ID51l7y7 I know its in the dailymail so some of you will difficulty believing it. Do you think a ban on the burka would have subverted these criminals or do you think they'd have just chosen a different disguise? £1.5 million is quite an incentive to do so if you're that way minded. Ps..and it wasn't such an effective means of avoiding prosecution, since they're now all locked up in jail. Edited November 5, 2014 by boyfriday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 See, there's your problem. You have worked in the electronic security industry for 33 years and the thought of anyone being able to evade your little cameras scares the living day lights out of you. CCTV is only a tool used by security services and law enforcement not the be all and end all. By the way I have been in the security and law enforcement, still am, and if I was tasked as I stated earlier I would laugh my cobblers off. With regards to your second question I have no idea, could you tell me? Frightens the life out of me? I've been retired 14 years, I don't give a monkeys ( see what I did there ) if they never sell another one. No one claimed that it's 'the be all and end all' did they? Why don't you do a little research and enlighten yourself, the cost benefit analysis of using CCTV against hiring more police is enormous. That's why the government is spending billions on extending and maintaining the system, they are saving billions more than they spend. If you think that they would allow that to be made redundant then I have to say that you really are not the brightest. Tell me, what exactly did you do in the security/law enforcement business? The answer to your question regarding my question is yes, they were charged with not adhering to the mask ban, so you see, if the authorities wish to bring in such a ban they can, and will. For anyone to think otherwise betrays naivety and lack of knowledge of how the real world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Frightens the life out of me? I've been retired 14 years, I don't give a monkeys ( see what I did there ) if they never sell another one. No one claimed that it's 'the be all and end all' did they? Why don't you do a little research and enlighten yourself, the cost benefit analysis of using CCTV against hiring more police is enormous. That's why the government is spending billions on extending and maintaining the system, they are saving billions more than they spend. If you think that they would allow that to be made redundant then I have to say that you really are not the brightest. Tell me, what exactly did you do in the security/law enforcement business? The answer to your question regarding my question is yes, they were charged with not adhering to the mask ban, so you see, if the authorities wish to bring in such a ban they can, and will. For anyone to think otherwise betrays naivety and lack of knowledge of how the real world works. I see that you are becoming abusive now, a clear sign of lack of understanding of anyone else's point of view. So, what were they actually charged with then? Would it have been section 60aa CJ&POA 1994 that I so clearly laid out for you earlier on. By the way, violence was used at almost all of those protests hence the above sec 60aa. Edited November 5, 2014 by monkey104 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) I'm not certain a change in the law is required to facilitate that. Do you think a ban on the burka would have subverted these criminals or do you think they'd have just chosen a different disguise? £1.5 million is quite an incentive to do so if you're that way minded. Four burka wearing people walking to and into Selfridges probably wouldn't have raised much suspicion, if hiding your face in public was illegal there is a reasonable chance that officers looking at CCTV would have spotted them and responded before they robbed the store. Looks like Saudi Arabia have the same problems with the burka Six-year-old girl robs Saudi Arabian jewellery store while women in burkhas distract staff. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530033/Six-year-old-girl-robs-Saudi-Arabian-jewellery-store-women-burkhas-distract-staff.html#ixzz3IDBnnMLs Edited November 5, 2014 by SavannahP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Looks like Saudi Arabia have the same problems with the burkaConsidering they're the guys who have done most of the heavy lifting for the promotion of this garment in modern times, my heart really bleeds I call it poetic justice From the UK?Get back to you later on that, lacking time at moment, but about this: I've noticed you haven't challenged jc and his rather 'evasive' response to my question?Why should I? It's your question to him and his reply, not my question to you and your reply Edited November 5, 2014 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Considering they're the guys who have done most of the heavy lifting for the promotion of this garment in modern times, my heart really bleeds I call it poetic justice No, surely they don't promote the use of the burka. Sheikh Abdullah Daoud, Saudi Arabian Cleric Issues Fatwa Calling For Female Babies To Wear Burkas Sheikh Abdullah Daoud delivered the fatwa on Islamic al-Majd TV and stressed his belief the veil would protect baby girls from being sexually molested. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/04/sheikh-abdullah-daoud-saudi-arabian-cleric-fatwa-babies-burkas_n_2613803.html Yes it appears that they do. He clearly doesn't think very highly of his fellow Muslim men if he thinks they are going to sexually molest baby girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I see that you are becoming abusive now, a clear sign of lack of understanding of anyone else's point of view. So, what were they actually charged with then? Would it have been section 60aa CJ&POA 1994 that I so clearly laid out for you earlier on. By the way, violence was used at almost all of those protests hence the above sec 60aa. They were charged with not adhering to the temporary mask ban put in place in response to the Anti- Austerity riots, what the hell does it matter what section it was? You appear weirdly obsessed with categories and sections, let me tell you it's a bit like train spotting, most of us have no interest whatsoever, it was made illegal they were charged with it, end of. You were completely wasting your time 'so clearly laying it out for me', what relevance is there to section whatever? Who cares? It's a technicality for official use only. Should you require that information look it up, I'm sure you will know exactly how to do that. So, for the avoidance of doubt, you genuinely believe that the authorities would take no action if the general population decided that they would appear in public from now on with their identities concealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) They were charged with not adhering to the temporary mask ban put in place in response to the Anti- Austerity riots, what the hell does it matter what section it was? You appear weirdly obsessed with categories and sections, let me tell you it's a bit like train spotting, most of us have no interest whatsoever, it was made illegal they were charged with it, end of. You were completely wasting your time 'so clearly laying it out for me', what relevance is there to section whatever? Who cares? It's a technicality for official use only. Should you require that information look it up, I'm sure you will know exactly how to do that. So, for the avoidance of doubt, you genuinely believe that the authorities would take no action if the general population decided that they would appear in public from now on with their identities concealed? The point I was trying to make was that the legislation was already in place. You were under the illusion that legislation had been enacted for the austerity protests. Thank you for input. I am now going to don my face mask as it gets rather cold on my motorcycle. By the way, yes. Edited November 5, 2014 by monkey104 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts